Re Raja Muhammad Zubair Mukhtar

CACV 90/2022

[2022] HKCA 1595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 90 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 272 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 20 July 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1013) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 15 February 2022 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 22 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion, out of time, to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant also filed an affirmation to explain that his late filing was because he did not have money to pay to someone to help him prepare his Notice of Motion.

3.Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeal, the applicant has not lodged any written submission to support his application.

4.Having considered the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

5.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 (“Ordinance”) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.The Notice of Motion states that: “… There is some error in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favour on reject my claims. Actual life occurs different situation the mentioned COI information Immigration Officer and Hong Kong High Courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betraying bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and ...to reject my claims. … I don’t have legal representation and could you please provide and consider my real situation and safe my life…”.

8.What was stated in the Notice of Motion does not constitute viable grounds for the intended appeal. Importantly, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Further, for the reasons we gave in [18] to [21] of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.

9.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it will be futile to extend the time for making the application. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.